In re the Claim of Goldman
This text of 196 A.D.2d 927 (In re the Claim of Goldman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 15, 1992, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits because he was not totally unemployed.
In May 1989 claimant’s wife and her cousins formed a corporation for the purpose of engaging in the business of recharging printer cartridges. Claimant and his wife testified that he had nothing to do with the enterprise until he stopped [928]*928receiving unemployment insurance benefits in early September 1989. Claimant’s wife testified, however, that the business was started with claimant in mind because he had lost his job. She also testified that, during the period in question, claimant would assist her in various business matters when she needed help. Claimant not only expended money on behalf of the corporation during the period he was receiving benefits, but he had the authority to and did in fact sign several checks for the corporation during the summer months. Given these activities, the conclusion reached by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant was not totally unemployed is supported by substantial evidence (see, Matter of Gonyo [Roberts], 124 AD2d 884; Matter of Smalt [Ross], 82 AD2d 958). The unemployment insurance benefits he received were, accordingly, properly held recoverable (see, Labor Law § 597 [4]). Claimant’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.
Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
196 A.D.2d 927, 602 N.Y.S.2d 234, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-goldman-nyappdiv-1993.